Aeon418 said:
We know no such thing! After the dictation and sometime before he left Egypt, Crowley prepared a typescript and two carbons from the original manuscript. Now irrespective of any memory loss that Crowley may have suffered over the years, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that his memory failed in the space of a few days and prevented him bashing out a copy on a typewriter.
He also first prepared for the publication of the Book of the Law in 1907. A time when also was first known to proclaim himself in touch with the Third Order. Despite what he says later, he showed it to Elaine Simpson (Soror Fidelis) and he was bid in a scrying session to go back to Egypt, which he did not do.
People say this 1909 timeline like it is gospel, even though he was already writing the Majority of the Holy Books, including the account of a Master of the Temple before this time. Many of these are where we see the emerging authority. Crowley's admissions and his diaries are full of contradictions, and that is where the greatest support for this comes.
It seems to me that a person claiming Mastery of the Temple, and such authority as Magick in Theory and Practice would have had some great idea of his importance enough to have solidified his use of the Hebrew Letters, if they were to be the fundamental key of the magick of the West he hoped Qabala to be.
As we all know Crowley eventually misplaced the original manuscript, but he never lost the Book of the Law. He always had a copy of the typescript to work from. (At one point he was even considering publishing it as part of his Collected Works.) So to suggest that Crowley's recollection of the Tzaddi symbol rests on the discovery of the manuscript five years later is a bit of a weak argument.
The symbol is overwritten, and likely with a different implement. It surely looks like a deliberation on the glyph to me. Most of the contents of the book of the law, contrary to thoughts on the matter, DID NOT etch themselves onto the memory of Aleister Crowley at the time of dictation.
Crowley was still in his experimental period then. His diaries from that time show that he was using the old and new attributions on an either/or basis. He didn't have full confidence in the new attributions until the 1930's.
Crowley's LIFE was one experimental period after another. No one is required to accept each of them. He expressed eaily as much doubt as he did determination on many a subject. There is a lot of Book of Thoth one can be skeptical of, and still find value in the rest.
As for the commentary, it must be pointed out that he received the vision in question in 1909. A time when his symbol set was still true to the Golden Dawn scheme. In places this is reflected in the vision. (Note how he refers to Heh as the perfected Sulphur.) In 1924 he was still experimenting with the attributions, so he went along with what he knew best at the time.
Who is so sure this is true? I heard Eshelman claim this, but found little evidence of it besides Soror Meral's insisting. I respectfully remain skeptical it was this simple.
In 1909, he was already claiming Master of the Temple, had already started A.'.A.'., and was already taken to claiming superior authority among all Adepts. He started this in 1907, and expects people to imagine he had not yet considered the importance of the book of the law, though it had been instrumental to so many of his 1907 and 1908 work. hmm?
The exact criteria is not met by a counter-change he proposes. This would mean TWO letters are not aright. The exact phrasing, is ALL of these letters of "my old book" (presumed to be Tarot) are "aright" - ALL of them. it continues - "but [a mark on the page] is not the Star." What can be far more telling is the following possibilities are in no way the only ones to consider:
The symbol could be a Beth, proto-hebrew - and a correction on Crowely's specific understanding of the Star - thus the eight pointed on the Star is in fact, Venus, at the topmost point of the 28th path between Netzach and Yesod. Crowley spoke of it as Mercury long before. And it could be saying [proto-hebrew Beth and Masoretic Beth overwritten] is not the Star. Crowley has NO knowledge of proto-Hebrew, so he could not know such a thing; while Aiwass might very well. This understanding makes for a great interpretation of the text, but remains a personal conjecture, not an insistence. As "Star" is "Kokabh", the name of the Sphere of Mercury in the Hebrew, this is even a greater notion of reason.
The symbol could be the single worst Tzaddi I have ever seen instance of in my life, but I do not see why in his first Magical prime Crowley, who left other instances of Hebrew would make it look so horrible. Furthermore, the switch to Masoretic hebrew is uncharacteristic of the book. Furthermore, the verse does not mention any changing of the Zodiacal attributions, or placement on the Tree of Life. Even if it is a Tzaddi, all it speaks to is the inaccurate title of the Star. If this was the intent, it was poorly implemented. Also, Crowley's claim for a loop made to counteract Leo and Libra are not accurate. The Symbol has nothing to do with Tarot, and may be some other sense. In this case one should even wonder if it is Hebrew at all.
Mul La-Gula is the "Great One" - the ultimate origin of Aquarius. Retitling Key XVII by the name "The Great One" is perhaps enough to recorrect the change. This constellation is also called the "Kidney Star" and was connected to observations of the planet Venus, and Inanna as enthorned bride of Ea. Later emerging as a syncretic form Mul-La-Gula is later seen as a masculine being, but originally was female. Lahmu was the being incorporated as the component to make the masculine form, though he is often shown with his enthroned female consort.
This is an elegant solution, and speak to scholarship not available in Crowley's time... which simply requires a retitling of a card, and a clarification that would change the number of the stars in the sky on the card, from Eight to Seven, or the number of points, the number of stars, or both. At this rate, there become more than a few different options.
Something was written and Crowley tried to make sense of it in retrospect, and made a riddle where there was none. It is confounded by his own overwriting of the mark, and some brains (even his own) see it as one symbol.
The underlying symbol could be a 90 degree rotated Heh, and masoretically marked as Final. Again poorly illustrated, but this has more than a few times mentioned.
The exact nature of that verse was deliberately withheld by Crowley, or lost as a few parts of the book were in the first chapter. This is part of it major complication.